nacle, which, in the wilderness, occupied the centre of the camp and to it all eyes were turned whether in public worship, or when the cloud rested over it. And hence we find David accustomed to lift up his hands towards the holy oracle (Ps. xxviii. 2). pur Here, then, we see an instinctive reason, why Jerusalem, as soon as the Temple was dedicated, should become the central point of devotion and worship. The Jew believed that it was the only spot on earth where the true God was adored, which he had chosen expressly for the pose, and where he manifested his glory by the cloud symbolic of his presence. Indeed, Solomon himself was actually, at the very moment of his prayer, the best embodiment of the idea. His eyes were directed to the Holy of Holies, where the divine glory had just appeared, and he was using of himself most naturally the very expression, which without the slightest proof is supposed to savour of after-times, the prayer which thy servant (Solomon) shall make towards this place' (1 Kings viii. 29). What in these circumstances more natural than that he should think of his people, when, as Moses had foretold, they should be far away in captivity, then turning repentingly and lovingly towards their land which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name' (verse 48)? It is to ignore history, and the religious promptings of humanity, to assert that such a practice became customary only at a much later time; and it is to violate the first principles of logic to maintain that the idea could not have been broached in the days of Solomon, because history had no farther occasion to allude to it till the time of Daniel (Dan. ix. 5). But, indeed, history does allude to it in less than a century after the dedication, when Jehosaphat, placed in the critical circumstances fore 6 shadowed by Solomon, quotes from this very prayer, and represents himself as standing before this house, and in thy presence' (2 Chron. xx. 9). 'It is likewise apparent that there are imitations of passages in Deuteronomy and Joshua.' True: our argument turns entirely on this undeniable fact. But then, while Davidson assumes that Deuteronomy is posterior to Solomon, and thence concludes that Solomon never spoke the words, we prove that Solomon did speak them, and infer that Deuteronomy was anterior to his time. The style is wordy in many places.' Dr. Davidson does not, of course, mean this to detract from the credibility of the historian. But we may use it as an argument in his favour. For it shows that the author, whose own style is so jejune and succinct, must have borrowed from some original. His present diffuseness cannot be his own. Why may it not be Solomon's? It is full of later expressions.' Here we must enter our protest against a principle of criticism so largely acted on by our opponents, of measuring the lateness of an expression by the amount of their own ignorance. If we had before us all the written and spoken vocabulary of Solomon's age, then we might be qualified to form a judgment. But from the scanty remains of what they please to admit as Salomonic literature, to decide on the expressions that were totally unknown at the time, is the most preposterous claim ever set up in any school of linguistic criticism. In the present instance Davidson does not commit himself to anything specific. But omitting for the present what is peculiar to Deuteronomy (an argument we shall take up in its proper place), we may gather from others the expressions supposed to savour of a later time. Stähelin instances and D’hiy; and Otto Thenius 1 the formula, we have sinned, we have done perversely, we have committed wickedness.' Now, there is not an atom of a pretext for alleging that these expressions were not used in the time of Solomon. The root of was in use in the time of Jacob (Gen. xxx. 20); the grammatical form is coeval with the first documents of Genesis; and the precise word is used in Psalm xlix. 15 and Is. lxiii. 15. True, that is not the age of Solomon; but was it Isaiah or the Psalmist that coined the word? Indeed, if it were not indigenous at first in the Hebrew dialect, it was most likely Solomon who introduced it. Fürst remarks that it belonged at an early period to the astronomical language of Phenicia, and was used to designate the residence of the sun or the planets in the heavens.2 From the close intimacy between Solomon and the Tyrian Court he had the means of mastering their science and of appropriating their terms; and he was just of that turn of mind to apply to Jehovah, the only God, the most poetic of the expressions which were used of their astral divinities. Hence the singular beauty of the term, when applied, as Solomon does apply it, to Jehovah's residence in his temple (1 Kings viii. 14). As for the plural Diy (for the singular is as old as the language), it occurs in Psalm lxi. 5, which even Colenso allows to come from David.3 The formula remarked upon by Thenius needs no explanation but this, that Dan. ix. 5, and Ps. cvi. 6 took it from Solomon's prayer. One author used it before the other. By what perversity of criticism is the later writer made to use it first? In conclusion, we profess our inability to accept the idea. 1 Exeget. Handbuch. Die Bücher d. König. p. 138. 2 Lex. sub voce. that, though there is an original groundwork, bearing the stamp of authority, it has been considerably enlarged and elaborated by a hand later than Solomon's time.' As there is not the least tittle of evidence to show the existence of this later hand, there can be none to prove the enlargement of the original basis and the elaboration of details. With the exception of the personal relations of David and Solomon to the Temple, the whole groundwork is Deuteronomic; the hypotheses made, the consequence of sin, the result of repentance, the captivity, famine, pestilence, &c., the ideas fundamental and accessory, the imagery, the sequence of thought. There is no room for working out details on some other ground. Either the whole passage is a forgery, or Solomon spoke in the style and words of the Deuteronomist. The next question is, whether Solomon thought the Deuteronomist to be Moses. This does not require much elucidation; for he blesses God that the dedication of the Temple, and the whole posture of affairs at the moment, was just what Moses in Deuteronomy had predicted as the happy period of Israel's greatness: Blessed be Jehovah that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he spake: there hath not failed one word of all his good words, which he spake by the hand of Moses his servant' (verse 56). What are the words regarding the Temple spoken prophetically by Moses? We find in Deuteronomy, and in Deuteronomy alone, words that exactly fulfil the conditions-words also which are imitated and transfused into his own address and prayer by Solomon on the occasion. These words are: When he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye abide safely, then it shall be that ye shall bring to the place which Jehovah your God will choose to establish his name there, even thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings and your sacrifices' (Deut. xii. 10, 11). Here there are three points to which attention is directed-the rest of the whole nation, the selection of a place for the centre of public worship, and the sacrifices which, in consequence, Israel was to offer there. The unparalleled prosperity of the nation, and the peace that reigned, are described in 1 Kings iv.-v.; Solomon himself refers repeatedly to the city and house which God had chosen according to his promise; and the multitude of sacrifices offered up by 'the king and all Israel with him,' as the first fruits of what was to follow, is detailed in 1 Kings viii. 63–66. So that there can be no doubt that the passage which Solomon had here in view, and which he expressly attributes to Moses, is Deut. xii. 5–12. § 7.-Deuteronomy extant in the reign of David. That very same passage of Deuteronomy was constantly present to the mind of David in his vast preparations for the structure of the Temple. For in the few words which have been preserved of all that he said on that subject so near his heart, the rest from all enemies comes repeatedly into notice, as the fulfilment of the grand condition wanted for the erection of the building. In this sense he adduces the words of Jehovah himself: Behold a son shall be born unto thee, who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and rest and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house for my name' (1 Chron. xxii. 9-10). This same rest he gives as the clearest proof to those who were called on to assist in the undertaking, that the Lord was with them; Is not 'Jehovah your God with you? And |